Rename types likely to clash to include ImplicitUsings by default

[bruno-garcia]

See: #1487

Candidates

• feat: Renamed Sentry.User to SentryUser #3015
• feat: Renamed Sentry.Runtime to SentryRuntime #3016
• feat: Renamed Sentry.Span to Sentry.SentrySpan #3021
• feat: Renamed Sentry.Transaction to Sentry.SentryTransaction #3023

[mattjohnsonpint]

Clear example, Sentry.Span conflicting with System.Span<T>.

Before simply renaming everything, we should re-think our type names within the context of implict/global usings. Does the whole .NET ecosystem need to re-think this? Are these conversations already happening, and can we align to what others might be doing?

[mattjohnsonpint]

Discussed. I think we should do this for the next major (4.0), especially in light of global usings. Another good example is Transaction, which should be SentryTransaction.

Lets do this as part of reviewing the public API surface for 4.0.

[mattjohnsonpint]

See also #1585

[bruno-garcia]

We should give this one a try now on 4.0.0.

Adding ImplicitUsings to a project should allow you do do a basic SentrySdk.Init call and basic SentrySdk.CaptureException without having to do any using Sentry or Sentry.Anything

Wdyt @bitsandfoxes @jamescrosswell ?

[jamescrosswell]

Wdyt @bitsandfoxes @jamescrosswell ?

From memory, we initially pushed this back to 5.0.0 from 4.0.0 to descope the 4.0 release a bit and make sure we'd be able to ship it around the same time as the .net8.0 release.

I think we've derisked that now so could potentially put this one back in there. It'd be an easy first issue to pick up.

[bruno-garcia]

Since the 3.x SDK works fine on .NET 8, releasing 4.0.0 is not time sensitive. So if we want to extend the scope/time to take advantage of the major bump, we can

[bitsandfoxes]

What about Scope?

[bruno-garcia]

What about Scope?

Since that'll be more prevalent going forward, to keep it in sync with most SDKs, I think it's fine we keep it as-is.